Another cyclist dies in London

[Digby]

I know I said cyclists could be a sensitive lot, but I just read that the 'Cyclists stay Back - beware of passing this vehicle on the inside' stickers upset quite a few riders.

Apparently they wanted it displayed only on larger vehicles and asked that the wording be changed due to it being offensive. After many complaints, TFL altered the stickers and wording.

[hora]

I commuted by bike into London for 7yrs. I feel for my brothers and sisters vying for space in London streets

[saaby93]

speedking31 said:

saaby93 said:

Someone explain the strange lane markings.
Is there an offside bus stop just in front of the tipper?

Google map

so theyre saying the driver was distracted watching the nearside when a bike came across yellow hatching from right to left?

[Mandat]

saaby93 said:

speedking31 said:

saaby93 said:

Someone explain the strange lane markings.
Is there an offside bus stop just in front of the tipper?

Google map

so theyre saying the driver was distracted watching the nearside when a bike came across yellow hatching from right to left?

If that is what happened, then it's quite ironic that the driver was looking out for cyclists on the nearside, when a cyclist rides into the offside.

[Mr Will]

Digby said:

I know I said cyclists could be a sensitive lot, but I just read that the 'Cyclists stay Back - beware of passing this vehicle on the inside' stickers upset quite a few riders.

Apparently they wanted it displayed only on larger vehicles and asked that the wording be changed due to it being offensive. After many complaints, TFL altered the stickers and wording.

Okay, I'll rise to this.

The ones that were complained about were these:


No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.

Here are the replacements:



These explain the problem, resulting in an increased level of understanding amongst road users and a higher level of compliance.

Is that a bad thing?

[saaby93]

Would anyone score any of those very highly - obviously better than nothing but not by much
Is there a better one - possibly taking parts of each?
Some people are not good with drawings and others with words
If theyre at a level where you need an image of a cycle and cycle written about it doesnt need similar explanation for a truck?
You'll get some pedants out on the road claiming unicyclists are excluded and buses

ETA agree about some misguided parts of the road network encouraging the opposite
Maybe it should have a big yellow triangle on such features saying dont use this!

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 7th June 10:36

[Finlandia]

Mr Will said:

No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.

Much like a sign telling you to stick to 40 while the road is good for 60 or more, a sign telling you not to park here while there is plenty of space, and so on.

Surely the signs are there to inform you and tell you what to do, they aren't there to educate you of the possible outcomes if you don't.

[Mr Will]

Finlandia said:

Mr Will said:

No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.

Much like a sign telling you to stick to 40 while the road is good for 60 or more, a sign telling you not to park here while there is plenty of space, and so on.

Surely the signs are there to inform you and tell you what to do, they aren't there to educate you of the possible outcomes if you don't.

What exactly are all these signs for:


They are warnings. They exist for good reason.

Stick a random 40 limit on a 60mph road and very few people will obey it. Stick a 40mph limit and a "Children Crossing" sign with the word "School" underneath it and far more people drive appropriately. It's not rocket surgery.

[anonymous-user]

Mr Will said:

Digby said:

I know I said cyclists could be a sensitive lot, but I just read that the 'Cyclists stay Back - beware of passing this vehicle on the inside' stickers upset quite a few riders.

Apparently they wanted it displayed only on larger vehicles and asked that the wording be changed due to it being offensive. After many complaints, TFL altered the stickers and wording.

Okay, I'll rise to this.

The ones that were complained about were these:


No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.

Here are the replacements:



These explain the problem, resulting in an increased level of understanding amongst road users and a higher level of compliance.

Is that a bad thing?

If they NEED it explaining, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed out without a carer?

After all, it's a commonly repeated statement on here that cyclists are likely to be more intelligent higher earners. With fragile feelings, apparently.

[George111]

OpulentBob said:

If they NEED it explaining, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed out without a carer?

After all, it's a commonly repeated statement on here that cyclists are likely to be more intelligent higher earners. With fragile feelings, apparently.

This is where the training comes in but they always find a reason why training shouldn't be given to cyclists.

There's a lot of foreign drivers and cyclists on the roads in London and I'd recommend them all to have additional training before they drive or cycle in London.

[AyBee]

Mr Will said:

Okay, I'll rise to this.

The ones that were complained about were these:


No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.

Here are the replacements:



These explain the problem, resulting in an increased level of understanding amongst road users and a higher level of compliance.

Is that a bad thing?

I normally see these signs as "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror". They've started appearing on small vans now as well, ridiculous!

[Finlandia]

Mr Will said:

Finlandia said:

Mr Will said:

No attempt at education, just "stay out of the way" - despite the road network often encouraging the exact opposite.

Much like a sign telling you to stick to 40 while the road is good for 60 or more, a sign telling you not to park here while there is plenty of space, and so on.

Surely the signs are there to inform you and tell you what to do, they aren't there to educate you of the possible outcomes if you don't.

What exactly are all these signs for:


They are warnings. They exist for good reason.

Stick a random 40 limit on a 60mph road and very few people will obey it. Stick a 40mph limit and a "Children Crossing" sign with the word "School" underneath it and far more people drive appropriately. It's not rocket surgery.

Funnily enough, the meaning of these signs are explained to you when you are learning to drive, and later when doing your test you are asked what they mean, are you advocating the same for cyclists? Maybe not such a bad idea.

[danllama]

AyBee said:

I normally see these signs as "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror". They've started appearing on small vans now as well, ridiculous!

No it's not ridiculous. It doesn't matter the size of the vehicle, some idiot cyclists will still go up the inside! I see it every day in London, and had it happen to me 3 times just in the last hour! Of course by some silly bint in knee high shorts and sunglasses. in cloud cuckoo land.

Just statistics waiting to happen.

[walm]

danllama said:

No it's not ridiculous. It doesn't matter the size of the vehicle, some idiot cyclists will still go up the inside! I see it every day in London, and had it happen to me 3 times just in the last hour! Of course by some silly bint in knee high shorts and sunglasses. in cloud cuckoo land.

Just statistics waiting to happen.

Poor you... how did you manage to cope?
Filtering to the left and right is perfectly legal.

These suggestions that we should ban it are utterly ridiculous.

Clearly in some cases (e.g. left turning HGV waiting at an about-to-change light) it's a VERY bad idea.
But for the vast vast VAST majority of cases it is perfectly safe.

That's why we have literally millions of cyclists successfully navigating through cities without incident.

If you really can't cope with people passing you on both sides, perhaps you should think about some extra driving training?

[heebeegeetee]

AyBee said:

I normally see these signs as "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror". They've started appearing on small vans now as well, ridiculous!

That is a massive misunderstanding of the problem, which may get you into trouble one day.

[walm]

heebeegeetee said:

AyBee said:

I normally see these signs as "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror". They've started appearing on small vans now as well, ridiculous!

That is a massive misunderstanding of the problem, which may get you into trouble one day.

How?
Assuming that the driver can't see you usually makes you safer IME.

[heebeegeetee]

walm said:

heebeegeetee said:

AyBee said:

I normally see these signs as "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror". They've started appearing on small vans now as well, ridiculous!

That is a massive misunderstanding of the problem, which may get you into trouble one day.

How?
Assuming that the driver can't see you usually makes you safer IME.

Because far from not bothering to look, you do the opposite, and really properly look, look around the mirrors too and then do a double check to make absolutely sure. Then you move and find an entire car can be hidden from view (a car, never mind a cyclist).

It's really, really unfair to think that blind spots are not a real problem and dismiss it all as 'not bothering to look, and one made out of woeful ignorance.

[walm]

heebeegeetee said:

walm said:

heebeegeetee said:

AyBee said:

I normally see these signs as "I can't be bothered to check my nearside mirror". They've started appearing on small vans now as well, ridiculous!

That is a massive misunderstanding of the problem, which may get you into trouble one day.

How?
Assuming that the driver can't see you usually makes you safer IME.

Because far from not bothering to look, you do the opposite, and really properly look, look around the mirrors too and then do a double check to make absolutely sure. Then you move and find an entire car can be hidden from view (a car, never mind a cyclist).

It's really, really unfair to think that blind spots are not a real problem and dismiss it all as 'not bothering to look, and one made out of woeful ignorance.

I agree that it may very well be unfair but nowhere does AyBee suggest blind spots aren't a real problem.
Again, assuming someone can't see you either through laziness or inherent vehicle design usually makes you safer.
So please explain how it "may get you into trouble one day"?

[heebeegeetee]

walm said:

1. I agree that it may very well be unfair but nowhere does AyBee suggest blind spots aren't a real problem.
2. Again, assuming someone can't see you either through laziness or inherent vehicle design usually makes you safer.
3. So please explain how it "may get you into trouble one day"?

1. I think he does, I think that's exactly what he's saying.
2. Eh?
3. If he doesn't realise the severity of the problem then he may not take the problem seriously enough and may find himself in a lorry's blind spot one day. He might become one of those victims of lhd trucks that I see on nearly every long m'way journey.

[walm]

heebeegeetee said:

walm said:

1. I agree that it may very well be unfair but nowhere does AyBee suggest blind spots aren't a real problem.
2. Again, assuming someone can't see you either through laziness or inherent vehicle design usually makes you safer.
3. So please explain how it "may get you into trouble one day"?

1. I think he does, I think that's exactly what he's saying.
2. Eh?
3. If he doesn't realise the severity of the problem then he may not take the problem seriously enough and may find himself in a lorry's blind spot one day. He might become one of those victims of lhd trucks that I see on nearly every long m'way journey.

I guess we will have to wait for a potential reply from AyBee but you are reading a HUGE amount between the lines to assume that someone saying a sticker means drivers won't bother to check their nearside mirror really means "blind spots aren't a real problem".

Even if he DID (bizarrely) mean that - then him expecting someone NOT to check their mirrors would still put him OFF from undertaking... which as everyone on here keeps banging on about DOES take you out of the danger zone.

For the third time - expecting drivers to drive badly (e.g. "not bother to check nearside mirror") is the very essence of defensive driving and almost inevitably makes you safer as you will avoid doing things a more observant driver would let you get away with.